Republicans, right-wingers, libertarians and others are free to join in, but I would like some help hashing out the question facing many registered Democrats for this coming Tuesday.
Who is more electable, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama?
And that is the core question. Neither was my first choice, but I’m happy enough choosing between them. There are differences: drivers licenses for undocumented workers or not; engaging in diplomacy with Iran with or without speaking directly to its president; funding nuances relating to universal health care;
But who is more electable?
A black man or a white woman?
Someone who wasn’t around to vote against the war but says he opposed it from the beginning or someone who claims she was mislead by the president but now opposes the war?
A guy who smokes or the wife of Bill Clinton?
(I don’t know if I have, but in case anyone finds a post where I said I would never vote for Hillary Clinton, well, nevermind.)
Also, does anyone think it will make a difference if the Republican nominee is the haircut or the hero?
I think the “anything but Hillary” faction is much stronger than most people believe. I think Obama, even with the unfortunate name, is much more likely to be elected.
No. I think the anything but a republican faction is also quite strong.
Ever see Hannah and Her Sisters? There’s a scene where the mother refers to the father as “a haircut of a man”. That’s Romney. (Admitting, of course, it could have been Edwards too.)
Well, most of the world’s population doesn’t get invited to vote for the most powerful person in the world…
There is something about Hillary Clinton that is off putting. I can’t be more precise than that. Someone compared her to Cherie Blair the other day. That is never a favourable comparison! Cherie Blair was more or less universally loathed by the time Blair was dragged kicking and screaming from Downing Street, leaving long finger nail scratches in the tarmac.
Obama looks too good to be true, and is presumably a self serving fraud like the others, but I think it would be a sign that America is growing up if they had a black president. It would certainly give America a more acceptable face in a suspicious and hostile world. (Yes, I know, it wouldn’t hurt if the UK could do the same, but we don’t get to vote for a president. Our Head of State is hereditary. )
If I could presume so far as to give one piece of advice to the American electorate: whoever you choose, make sure it isn’t an inarticulate incoherent alcoholic religious fundamentalist on a mission from God who can’t walk and chew gum.
If the last two elections count, those who don’t get to vote include some of that person’s own country.
I count six characteristics there. If we end up with 3 out of 6 is that too many? Can we get away with 4? I will presume that if we end up with 2 or fewer that will be OK with you.
Would any other colors, shades, or hues be indicative of the same thing? How about specific ethnicity, fashion awareness, pop literacy, or sexual orientation?
Barak seems, to me, much less divisive. A great many people have strong negative feelings toward the Clintons, and/or toward Hillary specifically. Also, Obama is more electable, if only for the reason that he doesn’t have to explain a vote “for the war”, like Hillary does. He’s also easier to like, IMO.
I thought their latest debate showed them both to be people who would listen to a variety of views, rather than surrounding themselves with cronies, yes-men, and former industry lobbyists. I’d also say it bodes well for the dems that there have been record turnouts in all the primaries.
Obama, Clinton , or McCain, for that matter, would be almost infinitely better than our current pResident. None of them are idealogues, at least not close to Bush and Cheney’s level. They’re all hard workers, which puts them immeasurably higher up the ladder than the current scoundrels. They’re interested, thinking people. While I plan to work hard to get Obama elected, any of those three would be a HUGE improvement.
I take your point. However, I think that having a president who is visibly not from the ethnic group that has historically been dominant - economically, politically, and culturally - would be a visible sign of progress. It would be a milestone in a way that having a WASP who just happened to be female would not.
I assume both prospective candidates are more or less qualified for the job. I’m not informed enough to make a qualitative judgement on that.
My general point is simply that, given two more or less equal candidates, if we look at the potential benefits arising from the successful candidate being either female or black, but not both, the advent of the first black president of the USA would be a more significant milestone than the advent of the first female president.
But I am not saying he should be selected simply because he is black, of course.
From outside of the USA, the USA is widely seen as a deeply racially divided country, with little or no understanding of other cultures. This may or may not be a valid perception, but it is strongly embedded. To us outsiders, Hillary looks like “just another successful brash rich white woman”. More of the same, but with better hair.
No doubt if Obama gets the job, we will all be disappointed with him within a year or two, just as we were over here with Thatcher, Blair and now Brown.
As Douglas Adams said, anyone who wants the job should be barred from applying.
)